"Promote your ideas on the MacBook Pros dazzling display. An aggressive ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics processor under the hood coupled with up to 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM powers the mobile visual studio youve been waiting for. Retouch color, edit on location, video conference with colleagues: Do it all, anywhere.

MacBook Pro makes your ideas more enlightening, with a sharp, high-resolution screen. See blacker blacks, whiter whites, and many more colors in between on a brilliant 15.4-inch, 1440-by-900-pixel or 17-inch, 1680-by-1050-pixel digital display. Enjoy a nuanced view simply unavailable on other portables."

Exactly. It's about advertising. And theirs may well be false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haggar

And how about some of those older 15 inch CRT monitors with viewable screens smaller than 14 inch monitors? It took a class action lawsuit back in 1995 to get monitor manufacturers to start being honest about the true viewable size of their displays. And I bet Apple fans back then were also saying the same "useless lawsuit", "damn lawyers" comments. But on the other hand, when Apple's lawyers sue someone, it's always "Hurray Apple! Go get em!"

Ding ding ding! Corporations exaggerate advertising all the time to the point of abuse, and Apple's track record is one of the worst. In fact, I'll go a step further...the computer industry in general is one of the worst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by akhomerun

as i'm sure it's been said, no professional is going to rely on the laptop screen for their final product. If you want a screen that produces perfect color, you'll have to go with a multi-thousand dollar flat panel or a $500+ CRT. I don't know what professionals use, but I'm sure ultra-thin laptop displays aren't it. I thought they would use CRTs anyway because of their superior color reproduction and contrast, as well as black reproduction.

Besides that, even if it does "trick" the user's eye into seeing millions of colors, it still appears to display millions of colors.

I think these guys are just taking Apple's usual marketing exaggeration the wrong way. And as it's been said, if one isn't satisfied with the color quality of the display, Apple's return policy is fine.

I'm sure the displays used on the Macbook/Pros are exactly the same as the ones used on other laptops.

So wait...you admit that Apple is advertising the MB as having a capability (professional editing) that it doesn't actually have..and yet this is just "exaggerating?"

And speaking of exaggerating, what other companies would you tolerate this from? Can a car manufacturer exaggerate mileage claims? (hmmm..do I recall...?) Can they exaggerate horsepower? How about them advertising a vehicle as having off road capability when it actually doesn't? Or, can a good manufacturer lie about how many calories their product has?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveGee

Hey!

I'm far from an Apple Apologist... And I'm the first that calls them out when I feel they've done something wrong. You freaks on the other hand are far worse then I..... You want to crucify Apple for the fact that they use electricity... the same electricity that's used to kill convicted criminals in Texas.

Apple does NOT manufacture their own displays.... **NOR** do they deal in enough volume to dictate the use of shitty components in the manufacture of their displays to the true manufactures of said displays.

Are you living in such a fantasy land as to believe that Apple has input into the components that make up an LCD display? If so, more power to ya...

D

Uhh...yes. I am. Perhaps not the exact components, but with the millions they buy often under exclusive contract, you can bet your ass they know how they are made. Please. And don't tell me they don't buy enough either. I guess they don't buy enough RAM and NAND either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonefree

Shhhh!!! Don't say stuff like this unless you want to get chased out here by the pitchfork and torch wielding fanboys!

Oh, and you forgot to mention the mooing/whining fans (cooling device not the users) and the discolored white Macbooks, two other issues Apple refused to acknowlege until negative publicity forced them to.

Oh and then there's the Mac "laptops" that get so hot you can't actually put them on your lap without wearing firefighter pants. In case that doesn't bother you, keep in mind that heat is the number one cause of component failure, so expect a lot of MBs, MBPs to start dying very soon.

I'm not posting this to troll. Apple makes beautiful products and a superior OS and I and am interested in getting a MB (l'm a long time Windows user). But they really need to be held accountable, something its rabid fanbase refuses to do, no matter how much crap they have to put up with.

True, but to be fair those are separate issues.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

As opposed to the Swiss, who are content to get by hoarding Nazi gold? \

Every nation obviously has its issues. No need to hurl stones, unless you live in a non-glass house, and no one really does.

.

i'm not sure where you are from, but i can imagine only one place. tbaggins was not polite nor even smart in his comment, but you speak from pure racist speculation. you want to prove the nazi thing? you want to then just be forgiven by something like that by saying: "no need to hurl stones"? complete rubbish - you took this too far - tbaggins noticed only one thing and may not have known the difference between a good and bad screen or perhaps his father has a nice one.

what does your comment have to do with mac? or this article? or humanity? anything but complete naiveity? not in your post, probably not in your head either

Like others, because Apple fits the pattern so well, I assumed that Apple sold an overpriced computer with "outdated or sub-standard parts", increasing its profit margins while other computer manufacturers increase their market share by cutting prices agressively and offering new features from the likes of the Santa Rosa platform.

Apple made a speed bump rather than update the MB at this point. That doesn't mean that the MB will never get an upgrade. There are a lot of folks still offering non-Santa Rosa laptops.

In Apple's case it requires sufficient volume from Intel to support more than half their total notebook sales. You're going to expect Apple to lag except when Intel can guarantee volume and Intel can't continually play favorites with Apple given then Dell and HP move far more product both laptop and desktop.

Apple may be pushing back new hardware designs to launch with Leopard. Which means we may be stuck with speed bumps till fall. For the MBP this is no big deal. For the MB and Mini this is annoying.

Given Apple and its deal with Intel for the 3Ghz cloverton they may be looking for something special.

Quote:

Was I wrong. This isn't the just released MacBook of May 2007. As foreseen by AppleInsider, it has none of the benefits and improvements of the Santa Rosa platform:

The macbook you're talking about is an old model with a speed bump. No keynote? No new model.

This lawsuit was fall flat on its face because all companies list their 6-bit displays as having "millions" of colors, and some even dare to advertise their 6-bit panels as having 16.7 million colors.

The FACT is that almost all (99%?) laptop LCDs use 6-bit, TN panels, which are cheap and economical. Should any reasonable person be surprised that performance liberties are taken with portable computers? Do these people actually think that their 7200rpm drives are equivalent to 3.5" 7200rpm drives?

My MacBook's LCD is decent to my eyes, but I have low expectations for laptop screens; that's why I hook up my MacBook to my 24" 8-bit S-PVA Dell 2407, which will blow away ANY laptop LCD, no matter how expensive it is.

If it's a 6 bit display it should be noted in the specs. 6 bits is enough for a decent experience, sure, but it should be noted to the customer. And also in the display menu it shouldn't state "millions of colors" but I dunno... "hundreds of thousands of colors" or something more accurate. It took me just a moment after seeing the first macbook model to understand that the strange glossy screen lacks colors. It's grainy. Just watch a normal Apple HD trailer and you'll see the green rating screen in the beginning isn't just one green color.. it's grainy. I think it's ok for a cheap computer though it should be in the specs.

This lawsuit was fall flat on its face because all companies list their 6-bit displays as having "millions" of colors, and some even dare to advertise their 6-bit panels as having 16.7 million colors.

The FACT is that almost all (99%?) laptop LCDs use 6-bit, TN panels, which are cheap and economical. Should any reasonable person be surprised that performance liberties are taken with portable computers? Do these people actually think that their 7200rpm drives are equivalent to 3.5" 7200rpm drives?

My MacBook's LCD is decent to my eyes, but I have low expectations for laptop screens; that's why I hook up my MacBook to my 24" 8-bit S-PVA Dell 2407, which will blow away ANY laptop LCD, no matter how expensive it is.

Bingo. Let's all get familiar with FRC (Frame Rate Control, see below). There is enough jargon here to qualify "capable of millions of colours". End of story. This lawsuit has a 1% chance of making it through.

As I mentioned though, a good thing for Apple to pick up on and as someone suggested, advertise 8-bit and solidly decent screens on MacBookPro vs. MacBook 6-bit. Or just to keep them on their toes, that's better for everyone, even though as I mentioned the method of lawsuits for this purpose is well, overkill, overblown, and too much already....

...The image on an 18-bit matrix looks depressingly bad without any additional measures. Such a matrix is in fact only suitable for office work and maybe for games. Thats why the manufacturers realize the so-called Frame Rate Control (FRC), a method of emulation of the missing colors when the color of a pixel is changed slightly with every frame. For example, the monitor has to output the color RGB:{154;154;154}, and the matrix doesnt physically support it, but it supports the two neighboring colors, i.e. RGB{152;152;152} and RGB{156;156;156}. If we were outputting these two colors alternately with the frequency of the refresh rate, the similarity of these colors and the inertia of the human eye (which doesnt perceive flickering at a frequency of 60 hertz) as well as of the matrix itself (which is smoothing the moment when the colors are being switched) would give us what our eyes would perceive as some in-between color, i.e. the required RGB:{154;154;154}.

Of course, this is still an emulation, which cannot match the true true color reproduction, so such monitors are often specified to output 16.2 millions of colors if you see this number in the specs, know that you are dealing with an 18-bit matrix. Unfortunately, the text 16.7 millions of colors doesnt mean anything many manufacturers write this in the specs of their 18-bit matrices, too.

More complex FRC mechanisms are also used in practice, accompanying the more traditional dithering (when the necessary color is formed by several neighboring pixels of slightly different colors), i.e. changing not just the color of a single pixel each frame, but of a group of four pixels, for example. This allows for a more precise reproduction of colors the matrix doesnt support, but the hitch remains the same such matrices can hardly be considered full-color ones.

So, the quality of color reproduction of such matrices is largely determined by the quality of the FRC mechanism...

This lawsuit was fall flat on its face because all companies list their 6-bit displays as having "millions" of colors, and some even dare to advertise their 6-bit panels as having 16.7 million colors.

Then they should go after all manufacturers who advertise 6-bit-per-color panels as having anything more than 2^18 colors. Those manufacturers won't be able to use the cop-out "well, those other guys do it too" if those other guys are also sued.

This class action lawsuit provides an opportunity to hold lcd and computer manufacturers accountable for their exaggerated claims of millions of colors. Hopefully, the plaintiffs and their lawyers will expand the suit to include all the manufacturers instead of just singling out Apple.

Then they should go after all manufacturers who advertise 6-bit-per-color panels as having anything more than 2^18 colors. Those manufacturers won't be able to use the cop-out "well, those other guys do it too" if those other guys are also sued.

This class action lawsuit provides an opportunity to hold lcd and computer manufacturers accountable for their exaggerated claims of millions of colors. Hopefully, the plaintiffs and their lawyers will expand the suit to include all the manufacturers instead of just singling out Apple.

I'm not as concerned about the bits and I am about the false advertising with respect to real-world capbility. I could care less about a debatable math factoid in terms of "millions of colors" or a hair-splitting tech spec.

What I care about is Apple delibrately engaging in false and deceptive advertising, deleting discussion board threads-possibly to avoid then being used in lawsuits, short term product degradation, and refusal to honor warranties after that degradation. That is what I am concerned about and feel Apple likely guilty as sin.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

It was mentioned to point out that citizens of no nation on Earth should look down their noses at citizens of any other, because all nations have had their failings. Not that hard to figure out.

Does this have anything to do with Macs? Nope, of course not, but your inability to figure out something fairly obvious did require me to explain myself further. Cheers.

.

Jeez!!!!! --RELAX, MALCOLM X! -the war's been over for 60 years. Give the whining a freaking rest and keep that type of shnazz out of here! -I'm sure the average Schweiz-dude (who are a nationality and can be categorically discriminated against, the same as any race or religion, -FYI) these days is prob. just a regular guy, eh? -And historical facts aside, there is nothing more intolerant than a liberal preaching tolerance. -Your comment was meaner & you know it; so go sit in the corner and sniff your socks.

-I agree he Did make a sharp but fair point; Americans are ungodly sue-happy (largely due to the ministrations of sleazy lawyers, Britney's booty, and a supercapitalist society).

(I Also agree with you, that Nobody should look down on others simply for being different, even if some old book says you were born better, "chosen", and that everyone else is cattle. "Be the change you wish to see in the world.")
--

Anyhoo, it's really going to suck trying to lug a CRT round in my messenger bag, now I know Apple only uses 6-bit. -I hope they make backpacks for 22" LaCies!

It's a shame their secret bullshit tried to smokescreen the panel with the capabilities of the chip, as cleverly sniffed-out by Zlyden & noirdesir. 24bit -IF you use an external monitor.

Make Apple tell the truth, yes; (even if they word it nicely) but punish the Entire industry too. And if they win anything in court, Bill Gates should have to pay it -on principle alone.

-Even if it's 6, they should be able to say theirs are as good as anyone else's. If only 1 company reports real specs, it can end up making eMachines look better than Apple.

IDK, maybe there's a goat-stomach, sheep intestine, or something you can put on the screen to defeat graininess, like a diffraction grating or a micro-Fresnel???

"-but Jimmy has fear? A thousand times no. I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the...

Jeez!!!!! --RELAX, MALCOLM X! -the war's been over for 60 years. Give the whining a freaking rest and keep that type of shnazz out of here!

I was not speaking to you. But rest assured, when I am interested in your opinion regarding the recent USA vs Switzerland exchange of barbs (to be referred to as the 'the icky incident', going forward), I will let you know. Be prepared and remain on the edge of your seat, as instructions could follow at any moment.

Oh, and no, a nationality is not the same thing as a race, sorry. End o' story.

By the by, and sarcasm aside, I do like your tag and sig. NewsRadio was one of my all-time favorite shows.

This may be a little off topic, but I wonder how many people would be willing to trade an 8 pixel display for 10 or 20% less battery life? When manufacturing any product, companies have to make compromises that consumers often don't want to know about, or simply cannot understand technically. Still, it is personal responsibility that should guide a purchase, not whining about being misled when buying a product.

Still, following the line of reasoning, I am looking forward to signing up for this lawsuit ... and then starting a class action lawsuit against the lawyers in this case when they walk away with 100's of millions of dollars and I get a $20 rebate that can be used for another Apple product. After all, isn't it false advertising when the plaintiffs get peanuts and the lawyers get millions?

i decided to check up on my macbooks display pannel to check wether it could trully show millions of colours or was using "Dithering". i looked up the model number on the LG-PHILLIPS website and bingo - 6-bit colour.
The model number is: LP133WX1-TLA1 And here is a link to the page on the LG-Phillips website.http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeCon...prd300_j_e.jsp , just click on "LP133WX1" in the bottom left.

The human eye can distinguish between over 200,000 colors, but not millions.

This statement probably comes from research, but it is most likely an artefact of the mode in which this research was done than a real fact. The human eye is an analog system (and so is the human brain, in most aspects). Any research on this that gives discrete numbers is often (not always, mind you) suspect.

For instance, the human ear can measure more than we can with the best measuring apparatus. But humans cannot put these differences they can hear (but which cannot be measured) into words. What is lacking then is our ability to put it into words (or other discrete forms) not our ability to actually hear.

This statement probably comes from research, but it is most likely an artefact of the mode in which this research was done than a real fact. The human eye is an analog system (and so is the human brain, in most aspects). Any research on this that gives discrete numbers is often (not always, mind you) suspect.

For instance, the human ear can measure more than we can with the best measuring apparatus. But humans cannot put these differences they can hear (but which cannot be measured) into words. What is lacking then is our ability to put it into words (or other discrete forms) not our ability to actually hear.

Watch out for discrete values describing analog systems.

Watch out for overgeneralizing how analog systems are discretized. The ear and what most people incorrectly think of as biological analog systems are digitally discretized with Fourier transforms. While the system seems analog, it isn't. It is inherently digital all the way down to the biological level. What makes an ear digital? The physical spacing of the hair receptors in the Organ of Corti. That's right the physical, digital, spacing of biological receptors makes the ear a digital Fourier transform receiver.

It has also been shown that there are several thousand notes in each of Mozart's symphonies that have never been heard by human ears because of the digital sampling window imposed in the Organ of Corti. They are too close to a much more intense frequency and so are never sampled due to their sound pressure level insignificance.

Vision is much more mushy in how well we understand it in comparison, but it too is inherently digital. The output spiking of retinal ganglion cells is purely digital. No continuous analog signal is to be found anywhere in the brain.

The 200,000 color distinguishing limit is based on the sampling bin width exhibited by ganglion cell outputs. That isn't an absolute number though since it is the bin width and a basis for the ability to distinguish adjacent colors. If you slide the bin left or right a couple wavelengths you see slightly different colors than before, but you are not able to distinguish the new colors from the old colors, just tell the new colors apart. Also there is biological diversity and some folks have inherently narrower bin widths making them more color sensitive than the average, but only to a point.

The 8-bit/24-bit color depth just takes advantage of byte addressing in RAM and gives some insurance against improper colors being too noticeable by the more sensitive folks, or the requirement to do the hardware dithering. The deeper 10-bit colors are not a big deal at the display point for human eyes. We will never tell the difference directly. BUT, those extra bits make a big difference for color compression/decompression that lowers bandwidth requirements. Even though it seems counter-intuitive compressing the signal into fewer higher fidelity packets allow decompression to 8-bit depths that greatly reduce the number of visible artifacts. Carrying the 10-bit per channel depth all the way through to the display only reduces the color clamping requirements which can also generate artifacts.

Though we are getting off topic, the sudden bursts with which neurons signal each other are analog in nature. Frequencies and amplitudes of those bursts are analog things and have effects, amounts of energy transmitted by the bursts have analog effects at receiving ends (changing the tresholds for firing by the receiving neuron in an analog way). As far as I know, the brain is entirely an analog (and in some areas with quantum level effects) device. But so are digital processors when you go down deep enough

About the ear: yes I know it is a Fourier transform. However, the amplitudes of each part in that transform depend in an analog way on the input as far as I know, there is no zero/one effect in the fourier transform. I see the mechanism more as a very smart noise cancelling amplifier (which also results in use being able to hear sounds far under the thermal noise level). If I recall correctly, the ear is an amplifier (by actively stimulated fourier transform elements) which is why the sound level close to the ear is actually higher than a bit farther off.

......
Since lugging a full sized display is somewhat impractical, Mac Book Pros are used by photographers and art directors on location all the time.

---------------------

But all the critical color correction - re-touching etc is done in a studio with an A Grade monitor. Photographers don´t retouch their photos, they generally have very little to do with the print proccess...

You will not see a professional print lab doing their color calibration on a laptop, and if you do, choose a different lab

I've been complaining about this issue since I purchased my MacBook Pro back in October. I think many people can't see it, but some can and it bothers the hell out of those who do -- like me!\\

I've shown it to Apple Store Geniuses and other Mac users and have debunked the display as far as the dithering not being part of the image (drag a white window and the dither does not move with it). The party line from the geniuses is that it is as designed as the floor models show this behavior too.

Well I for one am disappointed and will join in the suit. If I was a graphic designer I'd cry.

The one good point is that if I can somehow forget that the screen is like this, it looks great. This is usually the case for full-screen video, photos, or games. However using standard Mac OS apps like browsing, mail, and the Finder I can see it all over from empty areas w/in windows to the mac menu bar and menus.

I don't know what to expect from the suit... in the end I don't want money, I just want a dither/sparkle free screen. Everything else about this Mac has been great and I just wish the screen quality matched the rest of the system.

Frequencies and amplitudes of those bursts are analog things and have effects, amounts of energy transmitted by the bursts have analog effects at receiving ends (changing the tresholds for firing by the receiving neuron in an analog way). As far as I know, the brain is entirely an analog (and in some areas with quantum level effects) device. But so are digital processors when you go down deep enough

Research is showing what were previously interpreted as analog input are actually feedback loops of biological digital signals. The biological nature and physical limitations of chemical electrical transmission look analog when compared to digital speed through copper and using state holding transistors, but that was just an artifact of being blinded by digital at the speed of light.

Wow, a lot of very silly posts (as well as good ones). I hardly know where to begin.

1) No company should knowingly advertise false product specifications. Apple has done that. Apple is very well aware of the specifications of the screens they order.

2) Some people in here will defend Apple even when they have been wronged by Apple. There's no arguing with 'brand freaks'.

3) Apple's screens are the same as most other laptop screens.

4) Dithering is an interesting technology which, when applied correctly, can enhance the performance of displays. I would choose a 6-bit display with dithering over a 6-bit display without. Too bad that the dithering is noticeable by some people. It reminds me of the colour wheel issue with DLP projectors.

5) Arguing that other companies do it too is akin to arguing that other people drink drive too. All of them deserve to go down.

6) Anyone who thinks that 18-bit colour (6-bit per channel) yields 16 million or 16.2 million colours needs to brush up their maths. You will get exactly 262,144 colours.

7) LCD technology is NOT behind CRT. You get what you pay for. You can achieve a wider gamut, more detail, higher contrast and less flicker with LCD.

8) I am a pro photographer and I need the MBP to review images in the field where a large monitor would be extremely impractical to set up. Look at any of the forums for high-end digital photographers using $20-30K digital backs (like me) and you'll find that nearly all of them use Macbooks for their work (though not necessarily final proofing).

9) LCD screens do NOT lose 1 bit per year. Who makes up this garbage? Yes, the fluorescent backlights lose intensity over time but the screen remains 18/24 bit. The number of colours which can be displayed doesn't change - only the brightness.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Apple be excluded from such as lawsuit, only that they should not be singled out when they are clearly not the only ones at fault. In order for this lawsuit to have any legitimacy all the other manufacturers doing this need to be named. Otherwise it's not about justice. It's simply a money grab.

Wow, a lot of very silly posts (as well as good ones). I hardly know where to begin.

1) No company should knowingly advertise false product specifications. Apple has done that. Apple is very well aware of the specifications of the screens they order.

2) Some people in here will defend Apple even when they have been wronged by Apple. There's no arguing with 'brand freaks'.

3) Apple's screens are the same as most other laptop screens.

4) Dithering is an interesting technology which, when applied correctly, can enhance the performance of displays. I would choose a 6-bit display with dithering over a 6-bit display without. Too bad that the dithering is noticeable by some people. It reminds me of the colour wheel issue with DLP projectors.

5) Arguing that other companies do it too is akin to arguing that other people drink drive too. All of them deserve to go down.

6) Anyone who thinks that 18-bit colour (6-bit per channel) yields 16 million or 16.2 million colours needs to brush up their maths. You will get exactly 262,144 colours.

7) LCD technology is NOT behind CRT. You get what you pay for. You can achieve a wider gamut, more detail, higher contrast and less flicker with LCD.

8) I am a pro photographer and I need the MBP to review images in the field where a large monitor would be extremely impractical to set up. Look at any of the forums for high-end digital photographers using $20-30K digital backs (like me) and you'll find that nearly all of them use Macbooks for their work (though not necessarily final proofing).

9) LCD screens do NOT lose 1 bit per year. Who makes up this garbage? Yes, the fluorescent backlights lose intensity over time but the screen remains 18/24 bit. The number of colours which can be displayed doesn't change - only the brightness.

9) Actually the screens do loose the ability to display colors over time. As the fluorescent of the old style LCD gets dimmer, the displayable color gamut shrinks and you distribute the same number of discreet color bins across a narrower gamut. Losing colors.

8) And you think any field work done in whatever lighting you have on hand is considered Final Quality? The laptop is a convenience and productivity tool in the field. If colors are so important that screen dithering not acceptable, then field lighting conditions which engender worse effects on perceived colors are out of the question for final work.

7) For a price $$$$, yes. In comparison, laptop screens are toys or at least just productivity tools for mobility, not final product use when you place that much importance on EXACT color.

6) Ony if you do not accept dithering as acceptable. CMYK has been dithered for decades and it is acceptable on print media, so I do not categorically discount it. Pick the right tool for the right job and don't set up artificial limits for a discussion when comparing tools in and out of their primary domains.

5) It's only an issue in such a narrow high-requirements niche that painting the whole industry with a brush calling a reasonable thing unreasonable is in my view counterproductive and a waste of time. I accept the needs for absolute color correctness. I don't accept under any circumstances that Apple, Dell or anyone else has advertised their laptop screens as being "perfect" for any particular color related task. That is an individual reading way too much into "millions of colors", and professionals are supposed to know better, or at least know how to ask the right questions to get the right answers.

2-4) Right on.

1) Again I will disagree as I accept dithering as a means of displaying a color on a laptop. I'm not in a profession that requires absolute color requirements, but if I was I would be smart enough to know that a laptop screen doesn't have the color gamut to do the job even if it was a true end-to-end non-dithered 8-bit system. I would use the laptop to make my field work better and then do any precision work in controlled conditions on calibrated equipment.

Wow, a lot of very silly posts (as well as good ones). I hardly know where to begin.

1) No company should knowingly advertise false product specifications. Apple has done that. Apple is very well aware of the specifications of the screens they order.

2) Some people in here will defend Apple even when they have been wronged by Apple. There's no arguing with 'brand freaks'.

3) Apple's screens are the same as most other laptop screens.

4) Dithering is an interesting technology which, when applied correctly, can enhance the performance of displays. I would choose a 6-bit display with dithering over a 6-bit display without. Too bad that the dithering is noticeable by some people. It reminds me of the colour wheel issue with DLP projectors.

5) Arguing that other companies do it too is akin to arguing that other people drink drive too. All of them deserve to go down.

You're one of those guys who sue hard-disk manufacturers for cheating you out of your imaginary due, aren't you?

Anybody think that the increasing failures of Mac Books is due to them coming from China?
My college age daughter just had a logic board failure on her Mac Book only after a year and a couple of weeks of use!
Apple customer service was of no help and basically told me because I didn't had the extended care warranty, I was out of luck. I thought Macs were reliable...

Anybody think that the increasing failures of Mac Books is due to them coming from China?
My college age daughter just had a logic board failure on her Mac Book only after a year and a couple of weeks of use!
Apple customer service was of no help and basically told me because I didn't had the extended care warranty, I was out of luck. I thought Macs were reliable...

Their being produced in China has no effect on reliability. These multi-million dollar facilities are pretty sterile and error-free.

Also, just because your daughter had a logic board failure, it doesn't mean that Macs are unreliable. Even if you have experienced 3 out of 4 failures, it still wouldn't prove that Macs are unreliable because a vast majority do not fail. You just got unlucky.

Now, if you want to talk about the iBook logic board failure lawsuit from years ago, then you have a case of massive problems.

- Most companies advertise their laptops as producing "millions of colors," yet all laptop LCDs, AFAIK, use 6-bit TN panels.
- Since all laptops use relatively cheap TN panels, users shouldn't expect much from them. Do not expect them to compete with a $1000 IPS panel from Eizo or Apple.
- Most series graphic artists finish their products on external, IPS or high quality PVA/MVA panel LCDs, not on their MacBook Pros.